If you don't meet the financial requirement ($200K annual income or $1M net worth), you can also qualify as an accredited investor by passing the Series 65 exam and filing a form with the SEC.

So you have to prove that either you can afford to lose some money or you have enough investing knowledge to know what you're getting into. Seems fair.

▲

colesantiago a day ago | parent [-]

So someone who inherits $100 million (11 year old or not) doesn't have take the exam, but someone who knows about the industry inside out has take an exam to participate?

Seems "fair" to be honest.

I have a few friends that that have told me about certain companies they would like to invest in and they are knowledgeable about but they cannot access them but I can and not give them any shares.

▲

tptacek 21 hours ago | parent | next [-]

We don't care if people with $100MM make a bad bet on a tech company.

	▲	shimman 19 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Maybe we should, seeing how disastrous unregulated tech has been for society.

▲

fragmede 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If you'd like to petition the SEC to make it so that you also have to be, say, 25 to be accredited so as to remove that particular loophole and make it even harder to become a accredited so 11 year olds don't get accredited because of a rather specific scenario, send me the change.org petition. I don't think 11 year olds should be accredited. Might make me elitist, but I've been called worse things.

Still, the theory is that having $100 million, even as an 11 year old, means you have about $90 million more than most people to lose before it even becomes an issue. Hence "accreditation". Accreditation isn't about "can you make smart investments" but about "will you be broke and destitute soon", and having $100 million makes it harder than I'd $400k is your life's savings, and you're about to put it all into NFTs.

Is the theory, anyway.